Woman can harvest dead boyfriend's sperm, judge says

[jillian]

I have to admit to being amused by someone who would have a heart attack if government interfered with her right to misinform her children that the world is 6,000 years old but wants a court to impose IT'S morality on this family.

Either admit that you cannot support the absurd and totally fabricated charge above, that I have argued against "government interfered with her right to misinform her children that the world is 6,000 years old," or show where I have said same.

You are now forced to admit that everything I stated about you in the previous post is beyond argument, as you are reduce to making up charges. I believe yours is known as a 'straw man' argument.

My point is simply that the judge should have asked for an investigation similar to that which is done in the case of adoptions. Can you remember that?

Better yet, write it down so you don't have to fabricate things.

you were hysterical at the thought of the government telling you not to homeschool or how to homeschool...that includes your right to pass on absurd and extreme religious dogma.

and you started with a rant about activist judges. yet in reality, you were not ranting because the judge was activist... you were ranting because the judge was NOT activist.... and wouldn't get on your annie coultergeist worshipping high horse.

you got caught in a rant about a subject on which you had insufficient information about which to draw any conclusion whatsover...

and now you've gotten your butt kicked by everyone on this thread and you've dug in your heels and won't admit that you were totally off base.

good effort at deflection though..

 

[jillian]

Since you have claimed the niche of 'legal expert,' why don't you tell me how you will take the position that judges are never in error.

Did he use the word expert? I don't believe so. He said he was in a better position than you to have a handle on whether the judge was right or wrong. He is. As am I ... as are the judges with whom I've discussed this case since your rant was posted. If this were about the wit and wisdom of Annie Coutergeist, I'm sure we'd defer to your clear expertise on the subject.

But I will accept your "expert testimony" when you say "It is it the Judge's discretion whether or not there is an investigation." Thanks for supporting my argument.

He didn't support your argument. didn't your mother ever tell you it's really rude to try to misrepresent what people say?

And as far as "...I will switch sides and argue on your behalf," thanks anyway, but it doesn't appear that I need your help.

again, quite the leap... he said IF you could prove us wrong. you haven't.

aren't you getting dizzy yet?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have to admit to being amused by someone who would have a heart attack if government interfered with her right to misinform her children that the world is 6,000 years old but wants a court to impose IT'S morality on this family.

Either admit that you cannot support the absurd and totally fabricated charge above, that I have argued against "government interfered with her right to misinform her children that the world is 6,000 years old," or show where I have said same.

You are now forced to admit that everything I stated about you in the previous post is beyond argument, as you are reduce to making up charges. I believe yours is known as a 'straw man' argument.

My point is simply that the judge should have asked for an investigation similar to that which is done in the case of adoptions. Can you remember that?

Better yet, write it down so you don't have to fabricate things.

you were hysterical at the thought of the government telling you not to homeschool or how to homeschool...that includes your right to pass on absurd and extreme religious dogma.

First, the term 'hysterical,' is that a slur against women? Look it up.

Second, I've never been 'hysterical.'

Third, 'that includes,' means that you are about to fabricate again.

And the part where I write in a thread about things I know nothing about? Here comes a shoe that seems to fit you, try it on.

"The Brisbane Supreme Court has denied an Australian woman’s request to harvest and freeze her dead fiancé’s sperm for future impregnation."
Woman wants dead fiance's baby: who owns a dead man's sperm -- Spriggs 30 (4): 384 -- Journal of Medical Ethics

It seems not all judges feel the way your judge did. Kind of obviates all of your posts, huh?
What was that part about posting on a topic you know nothing about?

"Brisbane Supreme Court Justice John Byrne last week granted the woman the right to have the man's sperm frozen until it is decided whether it can be used."
Woman needs court approval to use dead partner's sperm - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

...until it is decided...

From Cyrano: "And then, as I end the refrain, thrust home!"

 

[jillian]

your point? the australian court said the woman in question needed a court order. they did here, too. and they GOT a court order. and? not that australia law applies.. but still ...

you're really reaching. try not to hurt yourself with those contortions.

as for the etymology of the word hysterical.. i think we can agree that the word can apply to both men or women.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Since you have claimed the niche of 'legal expert,' why don't you tell me how you will take the position that judges are never in error.

I wouldn't take that position. Judges are in error all the time. Hell, I don't agree with about 98% of the shit that comes out of the ninth circuit. What you cannot seem to have a grasp on is the way these judges make decisions. That don't ask for your opinion and they don't ask for the opinion of every voter, or person who put them on that bench for advice.

And you have seriously weaked you hold on the niche by inferring where I didn't imply. Bad choice of argument; I think I'll chose another lawyer.

I don't even know what this means.

But I will accept your "expert testimony" when you say "It is it the Judge's discretion whether or not there is an investigation." Thanks for supporting my argument.

Yep, it is the judge's discretion. He could have ordered an investigation. But why would he? The case had an expiration date. The girlfriend, her parents, and the departed's parents were all in the court room telling the judge that they were all okay with this decision. Hell, the judge was only invovled in order to aleviate the hospital from the possibility of litigation. Also, was this man an organ donor? If so, then that is the only legal basis the Judge needed for his decision.

And as far as "...I will switch sides and argue on your behalf," thanks anyway, but it doesn't appear that I need your help.

Oh you need a helluva alot of help. Your problem is that you are looking at this form a moral standpoint. You are ignoring the fact that there is a difference between law and justice. You may not agree with the procedure of removing a dead man's sperm for later insemination, but that matters not in the context of the law. This man made a fair conservative judgement. He put his beliefs(whatever they may be) and obviously yours in his hip pocket and made a sound judgement based on rule of law. He didn't legislate from the bench or make laws up on the fly to support his decison. All judges should act this way.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Since you have claimed the niche of 'legal expert,' why don't you tell me how you will take the position that judges are never in error.

I wouldn't take that position. Judges are in error all the time. Hell, I don't agree with about 98% of the shit that comes out of the ninth circuit. What you cannot seem to have a grasp on is the way these judges make decisions. That don't ask for your opinion and they don't ask for the opinion of every voter, or person who put them on that bench for advice.

And you have seriously weaked you hold on the niche by inferring where I didn't imply. Bad choice of argument; I think I'll chose another lawyer.

I don't even know what this means.

But I will accept your "expert testimony" when you say "It is it the Judge's discretion whether or not there is an investigation." Thanks for supporting my argument.

Yep, it is the judge's discretion. He could have ordered an investigation. But why would he? The case had an expiration date. The girlfriend, her parents, and the departed's parents were all in the court room telling the judge that they were all okay with this decision. Hell, the judge was only invovled in order to aleviate the hospital from the possibility of litigation. Also, was this man an organ donor? If so, then that is the only legal basis the Judge needed for his decision.

And as far as "...I will switch sides and argue on your behalf," thanks anyway, but it doesn't appear that I need your help.

Oh you need a helluva alot of help. Your problem is that you are looking at this form a moral standpoint. You are ignoring the fact that there is a difference between law and justice. You may not agree with the procedure of removing a dead man's sperm for later insemination, but that matters not in the context of the law. This man made a fair conservative judgement. He put his beliefs(whatever they may be) and obviously yours in his hip pocket and made a sound judgement based on rule of law. He didn't legislate from the bench or make laws up on the fly to support his decison. All judges should act this way.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but what is the "expiration date"?

What is the "point of law," if there is no precedent?

 

[PoliticalChic]

your point? the australian court said the woman in question needed a court order. they did here, too. and they GOT a court order. and? not that australia law applies.. but still ...

you're really reaching. try not to hurt yourself with those contortions.

as for the etymology of the word hysterical.. i think we can agree that the word can apply to both men or women.

The point is so simple that it is hard to believe that you missed it, so it must be a fairly transparent way of disguising your errors. Hard swallowing a crow whole?

This judge took his time and did as Art15 suggested, and I agreed was the best course, earlier:
"PC, would you have found it acceptable if the judge had acquiesced to the request with a stipulation that the sperm be withheld from the mother until a full investigation into how the child would be supported was complete?" Article15

This is way it was handled by a more 'traditional' judge. I guess that is the end of every post in this thread that claimed that it couldn't be handled in any other way.

And if you sourced the provenance of 'hysteria,' you know:Originally defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I agree with a lot of what you say, but what is the "expiration date"?

What is the "point of law," if there is no precedent?

The expriration date is a reference to the fact that they had to move quick. Otherwise the sperm harvested wouldn't have been usable. The way I understand it, there is small window to harvest such things once the person is departed.

As for point of law, precendents on this matter only apply to cases in which there is a respondent( an opposing party). There was no repondent in this case. It was unopposed. How many cases can you name where a Judge ruled in favor of non-existent respondent. I can't name any. So, what grounds did he have to deny the request? None.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I agree with a lot of what you say, but what is the "expiration date"?

What is the "point of law," if there is no precedent?

The expriration date is a reference to the fact that they had to move quick. Otherwise the sperm harvested wouldn't have been usable. The way I understand it, there is small window to harvest such things once the person is departed.

As for point of law, precendents on this matter only apply to cases in which there is a respondent( an opposing party). There was no repondent in this case. It was unopposed. How many cases can you name where a Judge ruled in favor of non-existent respondent. I can't name any. So, what grounds did he have to deny the request? None.

Incorrect:
Sperm can be frozen indefinitely. There have been normal pregnancies from sperm stored frozen for 12 years. The efficacy of the freezing is questionable when it has been frozen for more than 12 years. Each individual's sperm reacts differently to the freezing process. The result of the thawed test batch can give you some indication of how your sperm reacts to the process.
How long can you effectively keep my frozen sperm?

The judge could have handled it two other ways:
1- Claimed that there is no common law marriage in NY, and thus the women had no standing.
2.-"The Brisbane Supreme Court has denied an Australian woman’s request to harvest and freeze her dead fiancé’s sperm for future impregnation. "
Woman wants dead fiance's baby: who owns a dead man's sperm -- Spriggs 30 (4): 384 -- Journal of Medical Ethics

 

[Ravi]

And if you sourced the provenance of 'hysteria,' you know:Originally defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus.

Given that this thread is the result of you wanting control over someone else's uterus I'd say hysterical is an apt description of your posts on this thread.

 

[Ravi]

I agree with a lot of what you say, but what is the "expiration date"?

What is the "point of law," if there is no precedent?

The expriration date is a reference to the fact that they had to move quick. Otherwise the sperm harvested wouldn't have been usable. The way I understand it, there is small window to harvest such things once the person is departed.

As for point of law, precendents on this matter only apply to cases in which there is a respondent( an opposing party). There was no repondent in this case. It was unopposed. How many cases can you name where a Judge ruled in favor of non-existent respondent. I can't name any. So, what grounds did he have to deny the request? None.

Incorrect:
Sperm can be frozen indefinitely. There have been normal pregnancies from sperm stored frozen for 12 years. The efficacy of the freezing is questionable when it has been frozen for more than 12 years. Each individual's sperm reacts differently to the freezing process. The result of the thawed test batch can give you some indication of how your sperm reacts to the process.
How long can you effectively keep my frozen sperm?

The judge could have handled it two other ways:
1- Claimed that there is no common law marriage in NY, and thus the women had no standing.
2.-"The Brisbane Supreme Court has denied an Australian woman’s request to harvest and freeze her dead fiancé’s sperm for future impregnation. "
Woman wants dead fiance's baby: who owns a dead man's sperm -- Spriggs 30 (4): 384 -- Journal of Medical Ethics

It wasn't frozen if it was still in the guy.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I agree with a lot of what you say, but what is the "expiration date"?

What is the "point of law," if there is no precedent?

The expriration date is a reference to the fact that they had to move quick. Otherwise the sperm harvested wouldn't have been usable. The way I understand it, there is small window to harvest such things once the person is departed.

As for point of law, precendents on this matter only apply to cases in which there is a respondent( an opposing party). There was no repondent in this case. It was unopposed. How many cases can you name where a Judge ruled in favor of non-existent respondent. I can't name any. So, what grounds did he have to deny the request? None.

Incorrect:
Sperm can be frozen indefinitely. There have been normal pregnancies from sperm stored frozen for 12 years. The efficacy of the freezing is questionable when it has been frozen for more than 12 years. Each individual's sperm reacts differently to the freezing process. The result of the thawed test batch can give you some indication of how your sperm reacts to the process.
How long can you effectively keep my frozen sperm?

The judge could have handled it two other ways:
1- Claimed that there is no common law marriage in NY, and thus the women had no standing.
2.-"The Brisbane Supreme Court has denied an Australian woman’s request to harvest and freeze her dead fiancé’s sperm for future impregnation. "
Woman wants dead fiance's baby: who owns a dead man's sperm -- Spriggs 30 (4): 384 -- Journal of Medical Ethics

Seriously. Australian law doesn't apply here. You need to find US case law, otherwise drop that argument. We aren't in Sidney.

As for common law marriage, yeah the Judge could have gone that route, but why would he and how would it change your argument if they were married? You rargument is essentially that she would be a single mom. Stupod argument at best and doesn't change if they are married. His next of kin were willing to surrender the rights to teh sperm to her, so that argument doesn't really apply either.

And the frozen part. Yes, I know that sperm can be frozen for a long time, howver they had not harvested yet. Did you not read the article that you posted? They needed the court order before they could harvest.

So now what. We are back to no respondent. Therefore the Judge alowed the order due no objections against it. You seem to be the only person in the world to give a shit.

 

[Shogun]

the title of this thread makes my balls ache. I'll be glad when you bitches are done here and back int he kitchen making me some pie.

 

[Article 15]

What gets me, and why I think PC is dead wrong on this, is that the guy's family was behind this. I mean, nobody with the power to do so challenged it. As a matter of fact wouldn't they have had to put the request in, show up to court, sign documents, etc?

It would be an entirely different story if the dude's family refused to file the paperwork and the chic tried to get the judge to force it through. But that just didn't happen here. I don't understand how this would set any kind of precedent. What precedent would that be exactly? I really don't think that because this judge granted this request any woman who has a BF die on them can now just harvest his sperm without getting family approval.

So what is the real beef here?

If it's a matter of conern for the welfare of the child and the judge thought that needed to be addressed, he could do what I suggested earlier in the thread. However, I haven't seen any credible evidence that shows that was warranted in this case. All I've seen is opinion.

Let's remind everyone what you wrote:
"PC, would you have found it acceptable if the judge had acquiesced to the request with a stipulation that the sperm be withheld from the mother until a full investigation into how the child would be supported was complete? " Article15

You are ignoring 90% of my post and you are ignoring the second half of the exchange where you got that quote from.

PC, would you have found it acceptable if the judge had acquiesced to the request with a stipulation that the sperm be withheld from the mother until a full investigation into how the child would be supported was complete?

Yes.

But the point of the discussion, and, generally, the back and forth on the board, is to kick around ideas and opinions. I offered mine with the view that the judge is setting a precedent which I find not in the best interests of all concerned.

An investigation along the lines of what is de rigueur in adoptions would have made me more sanguine.

I guess what has me trippin' about your point that a precedent has been set is that nobody challenged the request. I mean, I'm not a lawyer or anything but if a similar case were to come up and the family of the deceased were to challenge the request could their argument be thrown out because of this ruling? I'm not so sure that's what would go down. What I suspect would happen is what I just suggested in my last post, acquiesce but withhold the sperm until an investigation, etc.

The bolded text you never responded to nor did you respond to post #134.

Please keep what I say in full context. You have ignored more than half of what I've posted in this thread but are using my words like they are some kind of silver bullet.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The expriration date is a reference to the fact that they had to move quick. Otherwise the sperm harvested wouldn't have been usable. The way I understand it, there is small window to harvest such things once the person is departed.

As for point of law, precendents on this matter only apply to cases in which there is a respondent( an opposing party). There was no repondent in this case. It was unopposed. How many cases can you name where a Judge ruled in favor of non-existent respondent. I can't name any. So, what grounds did he have to deny the request? None.

Incorrect:
Sperm can be frozen indefinitely. There have been normal pregnancies from sperm stored frozen for 12 years. The efficacy of the freezing is questionable when it has been frozen for more than 12 years. Each individual's sperm reacts differently to the freezing process. The result of the thawed test batch can give you some indication of how your sperm reacts to the process.
How long can you effectively keep my frozen sperm?

The judge could have handled it two other ways:
1- Claimed that there is no common law marriage in NY, and thus the women had no standing.
2.-"The Brisbane Supreme Court has denied an Australian woman’s request to harvest and freeze her dead fiancé’s sperm for future impregnation. "
Woman wants dead fiance's baby: who owns a dead man's sperm -- Spriggs 30 (4): 384 -- Journal of Medical Ethics

Seriously. Australian law doesn't apply here. You need to find US case law, otherwise drop that argument. We aren't in Sidney.

As for common law marriage, yeah the Judge could have gone that route, but why would he and how would it change your argument if they were married? You rargument is essentially that she would be a single mom. Stupod argument at best and doesn't change if they are married. His next of kin were willing to surrender the rights to teh sperm to her, so that argument doesn't really apply either.

And the frozen part. Yes, I know that sperm can be frozen for a long time, howver they had not harvested yet. Did you not read the article that you posted? They needed the court order before they could harvest.

So now what. We are back to no respondent. Therefore the Judge alowed the order due no objections against it. You seem to be the only person in the world to give a shit.

What is the matter with you? I didn't say to apply foreign law, I said that here was another way to handle it that had actually been done.
Get it?

Drop the argument? Does that mean "opposition shouldn't be heard"? Where did you learn that law?

What argument, I gave a reasoned opinion, documented that it is possible and has been accomplished elsewhere.

Yes, if they had been married it would obviate the entire post. I would not impose, nor would the article be in the paper, if it involved marital rights. One major difference is that we would know that the father had committed to the woman.

Simple discussion, I have given my opinion and shown that it is both possible and has been done elsewhere.

All of you on the other side are screaming that you don't want to hear this opinion. So?
I guess in your kind of fascist America it wouldn't be heard. And I'd be in a re-education camp. Doesn't that make you think twice about your 'weltanschaung'?

 

[Dis]

What gets me, and why I think PC is dead wrong on this, is that the guy's family was behind this. I mean, nobody with the power to do so challenged it. As a matter of fact wouldn't they have had to put the request in, show up to court, sign documents, etc?

It would be an entirely different story if the dude's family refused to file the paperwork and the chic tried to get the judge to force it through. But that just didn't happen here. I don't understand how this would set any kind of precedent. What precedent would that be exactly? I really don't think that because this judge granted this request any woman who has a BF die on them can now just harvest his sperm without getting family approval.

So what is the real beef here?

If it's a matter of conern for the welfare of the child and the judge thought that needed to be addressed, he could do what I suggested earlier in the thread. However, I haven't seen any credible evidence that shows that was warranted in this case. All I've seen is opinion.

PC won't even *acknowledge* the fact that the guys family wanted this. She's so fixated on the mother, and what she's "not" entitled to, and the fact that she's a single mother with a child to see anything else.

She doesn't have a valid point. All she has is robotic textbook views, and Coullter quotes. Take either, or both of those away from her, and she's like a fish out of water.

Wow, this has been fun.

I hope folks on both sides have the time, and interest, to read this whole thread, over 200 posts!

I have presented a cogent, rational thesis, that in this precedent setting case our sights and those of the judge should have considered the prospective life that might be created at least as much as the the wished of the prospective mother.

That's it.

Your side has been reduced to irrational statements and vile language and neg reps, spcifically you, DISreputable, and suggested that I leave the board, or STFU.

I have no objection to being the 'lightning rod" for this discussion and in fact, feel like Leonidas at Thermopylae.

People HAVE read the entire thread - all 200 posts, and as they filter in, more and more are telling you that you're fucking crackers. We're at what. 6-8 people now, and half of them are pretty much defined as conservatives?

Oh, and did I mention you're a liar? Nowhere did I state that you should leave the board, or STFU. I said you should stop trolling, and that you're the type of person that gives us conservatives a bad name. I suggest if you're going to make such a baseless accusation, you at least fabricate something that maybe LOOKS like it confirms your statement?

That's what.. 2-3 times you've flat out lied now? That the best you've got?

 

[Ravi]

hmmm...it was I that told her to stfu unless she produced evidence that the majority of children raised by single mothers ended up in prison...which I asked her after I asked her the question she wouldn't answer....why does she lump all those groups (single fathers, single mothers, grandparents raising children, foster care children, divorced fathers, divorced mothers, etc) in to one big group she calls single mothers?

I guess we all look alike to her.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Incorrect:
Sperm can be frozen indefinitely. There have been normal pregnancies from sperm stored frozen for 12 years. The efficacy of the freezing is questionable when it has been frozen for more than 12 years. Each individual's sperm reacts differently to the freezing process. The result of the thawed test batch can give you some indication of how your sperm reacts to the process.
How long can you effectively keep my frozen sperm?

The judge could have handled it two other ways:
1- Claimed that there is no common law marriage in NY, and thus the women had no standing.
2.-"The Brisbane Supreme Court has denied an Australian woman’s request to harvest and freeze her dead fiancé’s sperm for future impregnation. "
Woman wants dead fiance's baby: who owns a dead man's sperm -- Spriggs 30 (4): 384 -- Journal of Medical Ethics

Seriously. Australian law doesn't apply here. You need to find US case law, otherwise drop that argument. We aren't in Sidney.

As for common law marriage, yeah the Judge could have gone that route, but why would he and how would it change your argument if they were married? You rargument is essentially that she would be a single mom. Stupod argument at best and doesn't change if they are married. His next of kin were willing to surrender the rights to teh sperm to her, so that argument doesn't really apply either.

And the frozen part. Yes, I know that sperm can be frozen for a long time, howver they had not harvested yet. Did you not read the article that you posted? They needed the court order before they could harvest.

So now what. We are back to no respondent. Therefore the Judge alowed the order due no objections against it. You seem to be the only person in the world to give a shit.

What is the matter with you? I didn't say to apply foreign law, I said that here was another way to handle it that had actually been done.
Get it?

Drop the argument? Does that mean "opposition shouldn't be heard"? Where did you learn that law?

What argument, I gave a reasoned opinion, documented that it is possible and has been accomplished elsewhere.

Yes, if they had been married it would obviate the entire post. I would not impose, nor would the article be in the paper, if it involved marital rights. One major difference is that we would know that the father had committed to the woman.

Simple discussion, I have given my opinion and shown that it is both possible and has been done elsewhere.

All of you on the other side are screaming that you don't want to hear this opinion. So?
I guess in your kind of fascist America it wouldn't be heard. And I'd be in a re-education camp. Doesn't that make you think twice about your 'weltanschaung'?

It is obvious that reading comprehension is beyond you.

 

[jillian]

It is obvious that reading comprehension is beyond you.

I don't know if it's comprehension or just an unwillingness to learn. And if some "liberal, activist judge" (which was her initial rant) ever had the temerity to insert him or herself into HER life by deciding if and when she could become pregnant, she'd have a nervous breakdown and spew all of this board. You'd see threads about "llib" judges, "lib" courts, "lying lawyers"

perhaps we should make the hypothetical more real to her so she finally *gets* it...

person A is no longer able to express his wishes. his live in love and partner of many years and he wanted one more child and wanted to protect the sperm... but the treatment for whatever ails person A will kill his ability to father children. because he is unable to express his wishes, and she is not legally married to him, a court order is needed and they go to court for what should be a fairly simple, unopposed application to remove and freeze his sperm. The judge, hearing that the parties' other child was home schooled, decides to do an "investigation" for the best interests of the sperm... (the very thought that we're talking about the best interests of sperm and not the desires of the person is seriously making my stomach turn)

but what do you think? you think she's lose her mind?

I do.

It's clear that she thinks law is simply a function of a judge imposing his or her will on litigants, regardless of the appropriate ruling.... so long as that ruling effectuates her own agenda and prejudices. She's also disingenuous in trying to say that the requirement of a court order somehow differed here and elsewhere.

Mostly, she thinks her prejudices should be enacted into our common law

And i'm still waiting for her to tell us if she demands that all single pregnant women have abortions.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

It is obvious that reading comprehension is beyond you.

I don't know if it's comprehension or just an unwillingness to learn. And if some "liberal, activist judge" (which was her initial rant) ever had the temerity to insert him or herself into HER life by deciding if and when she could become pregnant, she'd have a nervous breakdown and spew all of this board. You'd see threads about "llib" judges, "lib" courts, "lying lawyers"

perhaps we should make the hypothetical more real to her so she finally *gets* it...

person A is no longer able to express his wishes. his live in love and partner of many years and he wanted one more child and wanted to protect the sperm... but the treatment for whatever ails person A will kill his ability to father children. because he is unable to express his wishes, and she is not legally married to him, a court order is needed and they go to court for what should be a fairly simple, unopposed application to remove and freeze his sperm. The judge, hearing that the parties' other child was home schooled, decides to do an "investigation" for the best interests of the sperm... (the very thought that we're talking about the best interests of sperm and not the desires of the person is seriously making my stomach turn)

but what do you think? you think she's lose her mind?

I do.

It's clear that she thinks law is simply a function of a judge imposing his or her will on litigants, regardless of the appropriate ruling.... so long as that ruling effectuates her own agenda and prejudices. She's also disingenuous in trying to say that the requirement of a court order somehow differed here and elsewhere.

Mostly, she thinks her prejudices should be enacted into our common law

And i'm still waiting for her to tell us if she demands that all single pregnant women have abortions.

PC is what we would call a shit house lawyer. PC simply does not understand that in order to deny the request, someone would have had to respond. There is no respondent in this case, so therefore there is no case. It is simply a matter of the sperm bank covering their own ass against possible litigation.

She is forgetting that the parents of the departed approved of this. As the next of kin, they have the right to the sperm and were relinquishing that right to the petitioner. It is that simple. There is no debate here. PC is trying to argue her own morality with the law and she is failing. Seriously, what the fuck does an Australian Supreme Court decision have to do with this Judge's decision? Nothing. Her argument fails on every turn and she is obviously too thick to see it.